Title

The Politics of Pride and Shame

Description

<p>April 18, 2007

<em>[Update: I stand by my piece, which is mostly a bunch of questions, rather than statements linking race and culture in the explanative way it is being taken. I merely pointed out that as an American working deeply in the education field for years now, and having identified just such problems (and seen them connected in the Korean-language media for years), that perhaps questions about culture, as related to specific conditions that surround child-rearing, education, being educated overseas, the taboo of discussing mental health in Korean society, etc. might not have played some role here, on top of the fact that many Asian and Asian American males indeed might have specific ways of feeling alienated in "white society."

Obviously, to even broach mere questions is deemed "racist" by many readers. Fine. I don&#39;t delete comments (unless they are abusive) and people have a right to come in and say what they want - that&#39;s why I blog, after all. Yet, before we start flinging around the "R-word" I hope people actually think about what I&#39;m saying, and remember that what I said was that cultural context may be helpful as far as looking at context, but that "Korea" and the rest of the world should look at him as an individual. I spend half my post saying that, and the two need not contradict.

And yes, when it comes to the fact that most serial killers have been/are still white men, it does astound me that America seems to have trouble talking about this obvious fact, and mums was the word when Columbine happened. Yet, broaching the topic is going to get one accused of saying their horrendous acts were committed "because they were white," which would again, be not what I said. But pundits of all kinds of backgrounds have license to talk about the concerns of "black youth" as it relates to drugs or violence for years. I don&#39;t call doing so "racist" although some strains of it certainly can be.

For those who call such explanations as this "back-tracking," well, I guess you can call it what you like. I feel that despite the obvious difficulty anyone can have theorizing culture as a backdrop for what are undeniably individual actions, people are only reading one side of what I am actually saying, even after I have carefully delimited the extent to which "culture" can be expected to lead to culpability.

I speak as an educator who watches (and inevitably participates in) the nearly inhumane grind of the education system here, the extreme testing regime these kids are expected to endure, the harsh penalties meted to those who can&#39;t, the sudden skyrocketing of youth suicide due directly to mental health problems linked to academic achievement, and myriad other pressures that quite often lead to education in the US as a goal for Korean kids. And even in the Korean American community, the culture of such processes, as well as the patterns of culture do not necessarily end with a green card or an American address.

So, in that context, this does frighten me, and I think this incident, while extreme, does warrant reflection on some serious structural shifts in Korean education, the family, and other factors between which Korean kids get crunched in the middle. If you want to call such efforts or lines of thinking "racist", I can&#39;t stop you. Yet, I think it&#39;s significant, from this side of the water, to think about the fact that yes, he is </em>not<em> a white kid from Colorado, especially against the backdrop of what&#39;s been happening in Korean education in recent years, as well the socialization of males in Korea and Korean culture.

And since mine is an identity partially shaped AS an Asian American man, as well as an African-American one, I have a more direct interest in asking these questions. And if you think I am saying I lay claim to all the answers, I want to make very clear again that I </em>don&#39;t<em> profess to have them, and I don&#39;t consider culture as responsible for his actions here. But to assume from the very beginning that "it doesn&#39;t matter," when I think it may be worth looking at, especially given the copycat nature of high-profile suicides in Korea over just the last couple of years, I would hate for there to be a similar effect over there. Call it "racist" if you will, but mental health professionals have been saying for years that there are cultural factors when it comes to mental health concerns, especially in communities in which such talk is considered taboo. I guess to raise such issues in this context, no matter how carefully prefaced or qualified, is taboo as well.

So, are all Muslims terrorists? Clearly not. Are the vast majority of terrorists in recent years Muslim? Clearly, yes. I don&#39;t confuse the logic, yet it&#39;s easy to do. Yet, the mainstream media talks about the mindsets and motivations of many of the young men who get recruited up into horrible acts. To talk about "culture" as some generalized, essentialized force would indeed be "racist;" but to talk about the factors of poverty, religion, and the motivations for entering such groups isn&#39;t; they are reasonable questions. Do they dismiss the actions of individuals? No. People are all responsible for their actions. Just as we talk about the "culture of poverty" or in more recent years, have more elevated conversations about African-American culture and what often leads black male youth to join gangs, or commit crimes in ways that white males generally don&#39;t - I also don&#39;t consider that "racist." But is a black gangster responsible for his acts? Damn straight s/he is.

I find it unusual that it can be legitimate for me, as a student back at Brown in the 1990&#39;s, as an active Asian American and "multiracial" on campus, to listen to job candidates for the Psych Services position talk about the "special mental health needs of Asian American youth" and for Asian American campus reps to sit there and nod approvingly while they talked about educational and familial pressures, relate those to Asian American notions of masculinity and femininity, and a lot of factors that I mention in this article as clearly relevant, but merely broach the subject now is completely out of bounds. Unlike the mainstream American media, or whichever talking heads are on TV right now in the States, I&#39;ve been thinking about something like this happening for years now, in a </em>Korean<em> context; I&#39;ve actually wondered when and if something like this might happen, and how this may play out. I come at this from someone who lives and works in South Korea who works with kids in high schools, college, and alternative schools daily. And as I look at this both as an Asian American and an American living in Asia, I don&#39;t think cultural pressures and patterns can be so easily discounted out of hand, as mere "racism", and suddenly unworthy as points at least worth thinking about.

In the end, Cho </em>wasn&#39;t<em> just another white kid who committed yet another school shooting. But he also isn&#39;t the representative of Korea, nor his diasporic nationality, nor his supposed "race." He was a warped individual. I am simply saying that perhaps there are factors in his "warping" that may have had cultural aspects worth thinking about, especially for those of us concerned about the mental and spiritual health of both Asian and Asian American youth.

And that&#39;s where I&#39;ll leave it. If you&#39;re looking for "answers," keep looking, and don&#39;t think you&#39;ll find them here, or blame be either for professing to have them, or not having them. I don&#39;t, and don&#39;t claim to. I lay out some things to think about below, but mostly ask a lot of questions that I think are worth asking. And I am somewhat surprised that even broaching the topic, no matter how tentatively or awkwardly, is somehow "racist."]</em>

This is sort of a followup piece to <a href="http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/03/the_walking_wou.html" target="_blank">"The Walking Wounded"</a> post that clearly is spurred on by the recent events at Virginia Tech, with the mass murder-suicide of Cho Seung-Hui, the worst in American history.

As I try to formulate a response, I do so while trying to stay true to my own intellectual convictions, while trying to make sense out of something that is far more complex than any single person can make out.

How will I interpret this? How can I? I can&#39;t profess to know the mind of the killer, nor work from information that I don&#39;t have. And the media speculation will go on and on, while the Korean media will work in "national shame" mode that is the necessary flip side of the extended "national pride" that is taken in anyone of Korean descent who does anything of note overseas.

I&#39;m of two minds about this, but I don&#39;t feel my impulses are in conflict. On the one hand, I feel like this incident makes it worth looking at some of the social factors that very well could have helped determine one man&#39;s actions; on the other, we have to remember that Cho was an individual, and that the faulty logic that "Korea" is the bearer of collective guilt over this incident is just as flawed as Korea taking full responsibility for a member of its "own" who had been socially cast aside, as was the case with Hines Ward. My posts on the issue:</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2006/02/korean_folks_do.html" target="_blank">"Korean Folks Don&#39;t Like Black People"</a>

<span style="font-family:AppleGothic;"><a href="http://www.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=312670" target="_blank">í•œêµ­ ì˜ì–´ì‚¬ì „ì€ ì¸ì¢…íŽ¸ê²¬ ì „ì‹œìž¥?</a></span> (in Korean)</blockquote>
<p>More interesting to me than the details of all this and trying to figure use the blunt tool of structural arguments and social psychology to tease out the subtle and complex motivations of an obviously troubled individual, are the implications this will realistically have for Korea tomorrow morning, when this hits the Korean public when it gets up to read the paper or catch the news over coffee and the morning commute.

This is a big moment - and I am thinking mainly along these two lines. There will be a lot of things worth thinking about, social problems worth looking at - but at the end of the day, Cho was an individual. And "Korea" can no more be held "responsible" for this horrible crimes than it could have been for Hines Ward winning the Super Bowl.

On the issue of someone like Hwang Woo Suk, the folly of setting him up as a hero and the irony of his inevitable fall was much more of a marker of the society in which he lived, because his status as a public figure depended on the collective mind and will of the public. He was not a true individual, but rather a figure created according to the needs of a government, media, and public who created him.

The shooter in Virginia was a Korean (the extent of his ties here having yet to be determined, regardless of when he apparently gained residency there), but he was also - and importantly - an individual. That is something that will be hard, but necessary, to remember over the days and weeks to come.

Cho Seung-hui will live in the national identity of Koreans forever. He is the anti-thesis of all the national "heroes" whom Korea imprudently lauds as extensions of the national character (again, Hwang Woo Suk), as somehow expressions of the positive character traits imbedded into the genetic material of Koreans itself.

Now, after this horrible affair, perhaps the faulty logic of those connections will be apparent. I wonder if the move will be away from that logic itself, or an ongoing circus show of national shame. I do hope that the logic of not performing the latter will be apparent. Strategically, the best thing to do would be for the South Korean government to express its remorse and regrets, make meaningful yet symbolic gestures expressing those sentiments, and move on. If an American did this while studying in another country, I would expect the same from my government. "That crazy dude has nothing to do with me."

But that&#39;s not the way this is going to go down, is it? At least at first.

There is going to be serious national shame, expressed through the shock of this "representative of the culture" - even if the kid had been living in the States most of his life. There will be Korean media pointing at the parents, expressions of shock that "a Korean could do such a thing" (despite the fact that violence in the schools and against women are actually rampant in Korean society), and the glee that many people here in South Korea have at pointing out "American" character traits whenever horrible things happen in the US will be inevitably tempered.

Because the flip side of the logic now applies, like a mofo.

Let me just say that I don&#39;t know the details right now, besides the basics of the shooter having been identified. Nor does anyone else at the present time, really. I&#39;m writing, getting a million Messenger messages a minute, and don&#39;t have time to closely scan the papers as I write this, not that there&#39;s a lot of information, anyway.

In a way, I don&#39;t want to, as I want to write what I write clean, before the details make the issues temporarily more obfuscated, as they surely will. But in the end, will we ever <em>know</em> why Cho did this? Like the Columbine shooters, we&#39;ll speculate forever. Even when if and when we realized a concrete motive, how does one truly <em>know</em> when or how an emotionally fathomable rage becomes a horrible, inexplicable madness?

So I&#39;ll go with what I got, which is a lot of opinions about South Korean society, education, and social problems involving youth, education, and women in this society. I will say right now that I am extrapolating far too much from this incident from the git-go, but I think my lines of argument will tend to make more sense than the <em>Chosun Ilbo</em> or <em>Hangreoreh</em> will, or most "explanations" of this horrible incident. In a nation that wants to crack down on the rash of gang rapes and ongoing sexual violence committed against girls and women by launching <em>a campaign against foreign porn sites</em> as the main solution and logical conclusion, what, oh what, sense will the media make of Cho Seung-hui?

Let me just start by saying that I see a lot of social factors converging that might offer a social context - not an explanation - to this situation. It&#39;s also an excuse to talk about some social issues in Korea (since this is, after all, what this blog is about) and do some more productive hand-wringing than I think the mainstream Korean media will.

I wouldn&#39;t even be surprised if this is used as more ammo to show just how much America can "corrupt" good Korean youth. Just like Western porn is responsible for Korean boys (and girls!) conspiring to rape and sexually extort the victims that have made the news in a couple of pretty scandalous cases over the last few months.

And since my posts can tend to go on quite a bit, let me just list these topics, in no particular order:

<strong>This <a href="http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2003/05/01/News/Shooting.Blinds.Umd.Female-430428.shtml" target="_blank">isn&#39;t new</a></strong> (HT to reader)<strong>.</strong>
Several years ago, I was with a group of university administrators being given a tour by the US State Department, hosted by Fulbright Korea, and being given a tour by a respected mentor of mine when several of the administrators stopped to ask a question that seemed to be burning at them for some time.

"Why is it that Korean male students seem to have the most trouble adjusting to life in the US?"

Kind of surprised, but yet not, I and my mentor pressed further, and they explained that the students who had the most disciplinary problems of all their international students were Korean males. These representatives of large state universities all then cited incident after incident of Korean males threatening Korean students seen walking with a foreign man (a graduate student walking with her black professor - she received dozens of insults and death threats on her answering machine), physical conflicts with other graduate students over simple matters, and a some domestic violence in cases of Korean couples living on campus.

In that conversation, what came out is that many Korean men felt displaced and disempowered as males who lived in a society that catered to them, while in the US, those forms of automatic power and status - being male, rich, or having come from Seoul National University - mean nothing. And at the same time, Korean women experience a social liberalization compared to where they would often be in Korea; many Korean female friends and colleagues of mine who studied in the US cited how they felt constricted and uncomfortable (<span style="font-family:AppleGothic;">ë¶€ë‹´</span>) when a Korean male would end up in a seminar with them, because often, the man would expect them to acknowledge or "respect" (<span style="font-family:AppleGothic;">ì¸ì •</span>) them. When they didn&#39;t receive it, and often were dressed down by people younger than them or female, or by the professor in front of the class, they often felt particularly frustrated. And that has been a big issue and has led to social conflict and trouble before.

And that is just about all I&#39;ll say on that.

Then there&#39;s the interesting fact that the record holder for the worst shooting in <em>world history</em>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-Kon" target="_blank">Woo Bom-gon</a> (<span style="font-family:AppleGothic;">ìš°ë²”ê·¼</span>),<em> </em>is also Korean, this time a Korean national who lived in Korea. That&#39;s not in the least bit interesting? From about <a href="http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/spree-killers/woo-bum-kon/">the only other site on the Internet</a> I could find on this subject (there is exactly one I could find through Korean search engines, and that&#39;s a pretty weird site):</p>
<blockquote><em>South Korean spree killer. Has argument with girlfriend. Being a police officer, Woo Bum-Kon robs the police armory and goes on a drunken 8 hour shooting spree through three villages, leaving 57 dead and 35 wounded before he suicides with two grenades in Uiryong. The Korean interior minister resigns. (28 Apr 1982.)</em></blockquote>
<p>Sound familiar? So the top two spots for shooting sprees in history are now held by two Korean men. Hey - I just find this interesting. Is this information not somewhat relevant to the issue at hand? Don&#39;t know why the Korean media isn&#39;t picking up on this. Or maybe it will? This is another interesting fact to throw in with the others. Even <em><a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E4DF1638F93AA15757C0A964948260" target="_blank">The New York Times</a></em> had a piece on it back in 1982.

Well before this incident, and with the high number of suicides and actually pretty gruesome serial murders that take place in this country without guns - and I&#39;ve heard Koreans joking about this as well - people wonder what Korea would be like if guns were legal and freely available here. Given the recent spate of violence and suicide in the schools here, I also give a shudder.

<strong>Suicide is rampant in South Korean society. </strong>

It&#39;s the #1 cause of death in people in their 20&#39;s and 30&#39;s in Korea. And since I consider these incidents of mass murder as actually horribly violent forms of suicide - "take a few with you" - I think it&#39;s something worth thinking about. I&#39;ve blogged about this extensively, especially as it&#39;s related to the education system. How do you add up the affects of parental, societal, and other kinds of pressure on Korean youth, the extent of which few American kids I know even come close to feeling?

I&#39;ve already said enough about this that doesn&#39;t need to be rehashed here; it&#39;s better to just read them directly.</p>
<blockquote><a href="http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/03/the_walking_wou.html" target="_blank">"The Walking Wounded"</a>

What would be called stalking or considered inappropriate is often standard practice here in terms of dating, sex, and marriage. I often cite the case of when I saw a man slap his apparent girlfriend as hard as he could, sending her head back with visible shock. In front of a police station in Chungmuro, where, as a photographer, I had made my haunt. I immediately walked over, shooting away with my motor drive, saying that "you can&#39;t do that" and that I witnessed it. He looked annoyed and ignored me, at which point I walked to the police station about 20 meters away and informed the older officer on duty of what I had seen, in fluent Korean. He seemed annoyed, but obliged to get up out of his chair, and he went over to the door, cracked it, observed the couple still fighting, and said, "It&#39;s OK. They know each other." After I asked him if "this is all cops do in Korea" and "shouldn&#39;t he go check?" he just told me to go home. He never even <em>asked</em> if she was in trouble.

That&#39;s a lot better than the incident, circa 2004(?), when a group of boys from some small town outside of the capital were convicted of serially raping 2 high school students (they had been in middle school at the time, if my memory serves) after one boy had had consensual sex with one of the girls but had videotaped it and used it as a weapon to make her sleep with other boys - up to 30 or 40, I recall - and also impress her friend into similar sexual service. When this was discovered, the girls were berated by police as having run a prostitution ring, and were called sluts and whores, while the parents of many of the boys as well as members of the community gave death threats to the girls&#39; mothers for "ruining their sons&#39; lives." And such stories keep popping up again and again here, while the tendency is to not punish the men at all, if possible. I personally attended a small protest around a large police station in relation to this issue, which many Seoul residents and the more enlightened did, to their credit, find reprehensible.

But the level of violence against women here, as many Fulbrighters have heard as they lived with Korean host families all across the country, in apartment complexes where you regularly hear women being viciously beaten and screaming at night - no one calls the cops, except for me, it seems - and the many times I&#39;ve seen women just straight slapped around in public...the level of violence against women that is readily apparent if you live here is undeniable. I can&#39;t speak for all foreigners here, but this is something I hear again and again and again. And yes, there is sexual and domestic violence everywhere in the world, but this is a place where I can&#39;t even count on two hands the number of times I&#39;ve seen a women slapped down in public. And no one does anything. <a href="http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2005/06/korea_herald_ar.html" target="_blank">How much is a woman&#39;s body really worth</a> here?

<strong>Other factors? In the end, we just can&#39;t know. </strong>

So it&#39;s not even clear how much time Cho spent in the US, although it appears he has spent a considerable amount. The information is changing by the hour. How does one sum up one&#39;s connection to culture(s)? But I do think it is worth at least mentioning the factors that often affect Korean men living as foreign students in the US, the pressures that come from living in one of the least happiest developed societies in the world, where I argue that the mental violence of the repressively harsh developmental dictatorship has finally started to find expression, even as the pressure cooker that is the failed Korean education system sends more and more Korean students overseas at an earlier age, to experience more stress and even higher parental expectations.

What can we make of this? Well, it just strikes me that the motive for a male Korean student to commit this heinous act apparently includes being feelings of revenge against his girlfriend and was precipitated by a fight with her.

Beyond that, one can&#39;t really speculate. One can only talk about factors that might illuminate. But speculate and make specious extrapolations the Korean media will, and I assure you, dear readers, that they won&#39;t stop at mere speculation around social factors, but there will be a slew of culturally essentialist assumptions that lead to really suspect "conclusions" as to what the "real problem" was.

It will get more complex if he turns out to have lived most of his life in the US. Then, the onus of cultural responsibility can and will be shifted to "America."

If his ties to Korea are stronger, then perhaps his parents will be blamed for his actions. They will be anyway. Although it is not a nice thing to foresee, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if other suicides out of shame come from this, especially if "national blame" gets shifted to the individual, and by extension, the parents.

<strong>In Sum</strong>

But sometimes, we just can&#39;t "know." The pathology of the individual isn&#39;t something nations should be responsible for, because this isn&#39;t a logical or fair thing to do. If I go out right now and kill all of my officemates and then blow up a building, much will be made of my political leanings, little "signs" from the scribblings on my blog here, and most likely the anger I had after Katrina and talking about the song <a href="http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2005/09/bin_laden_didnt.html" target="_blank">"Bin Laden Didn&#39;t Blow Up the Projects."</a>

But maybe it was me. Me who was crazy, me who wanted to take out my anger in a horrible way. Is my nation responsible? Is Bush? Are my parents? Was it because I played <em>Sniper Elite</em> on my Xbox, or <em>Halo 2</em>? When the process of going over Cho&#39;s life with a fine-toothed media freakout ends, I&#39;m sure we&#39;ll see a lot of such explanations. But in the end, I don&#39;t think we can <em>ever</em> know.

How does one know the face of madness like this? If we could, wouldn&#39;t it be easy to spot and prevent?

However, this incident leaves a lot to think about. Not the least of which is the fact that the linking of "national pride" is just about as useless as the linking of "national shame", but the cultural logic of this is far from out of favor.

Perhaps if one positive thing comes out of this, it will be a national discussion of a lot of these issues, and if we&#39;re lucky, people will be even asking the question, "Does &#39;Korea&#39; even really need to feel responsible for this?" One might even see an angry rejection of this "national shame" - which in some ways, I think would be healthy; psychologically, it may be useful and hence, inevitable.

In the end, this will be the beginning point for a lot of different discourses around culture, race, and nation. People can and should now talk about all the things that very well may have gone into influencing one Korean man&#39;s way of expressing his anger, however inappropriate that may have been. There are cultural patterns to things that are caused by clear and present structural influences, customary and culturally-informed modes of interaction, and a great number of things.

But that doesn&#39;t mean "Korea" is responsible. Thinking about both factors will involve walking a subtle line that will be very, very easy to cross.

I just hope the conversation can be more elevated than some of the things I can imagine being said about this incident, this one troubled man, and the culture of which he was, to some extent, a part.

<strong>A few more thoughts...</strong>

And on the American front, things are still swirling. How will race, gender, and sex play into this, as well as the stereotypes of Asian Americans in general and Korean Americans specifically?

One thing that occurred to me was that I&#39;m sure Arab Americans are breathing a sigh of relief that the shooter was not of Arab descent or Muslim. That&#39;s the last thing the Arab community needs in the States.

I&#39;m sure most people were expected the shooter to be a white male, as almost all mass murderers in recent years have been. What is interesting is the fact that the mainstream American media has never made much of the fact that serial killers are almost exclusively middle-class, white men. The FBI and criminal psychologists have this as a base assumption; interesting that in the public mind, this is not even a question. Imagine if nearly all serial killers were Korean; or Arab; or black; or female. Then, it would <em>mean</em> something, right?

The gun control lobby will have a field day with this, while the NRA will likely emphasize (thanks, Jacco, for changing my mind about this) the kid&#39;s immigrant status and the fact that it wasn&#39;t the gun who killed those people, but an immigrant on a visa. Yes, people kill people, and it&#39;s not just the guns; but is sure is easier with a Glock 9mm with a low trigger weight that pops off bullets as fast as your index finger can flex.

And back in Korea, I really hope that after the nation has gone through the expected paroxysms of guilt and shame, that some South Koreans will tire of it and say, "OK, enough. Why do I have to feel bad about some crazy kid who cracked? It&#39;s not my problem." And I think I&#39;d feel the same way; I&#39;d have to agree.

From there, if that happens, the real interesting questions and debates can begin. More than anything, I hope that this might be what it takes to partially break the foundations of national identity into smaller and more interesting parts, ones that can be digested by a logic other than the dichotomy of "pride and shame" and into something more complex.

An even more unlikely hope will be for the Korean media and by extension, a large part of the populace, to move past the crude and problematic stereotyping and categorical thinking that defines a lot of the discourse around foreign others, and even Koreans themselves. Perhaps now, the logic that because the murderer who dumped a girl&#39;s body in Ansan Station turned out to be Chinese means that "Chinese are dangerous" will now become suspect. Or that "Arabs are dangerous and terrorists" if the shooter in this case had been Arab, or that "America is dangerous" because of this incident, when it&#39;s much more likely that you&#39;ll be killed in a car accident than shot by a Crip in a driveby or even a crazed killer in a school.

Because by extension, that would mean that "Koreans are dangerous killers" who should be avoided, or "are all about to snap." I doubt Koreans would accept that, as well they shouldn&#39;t. I just hope that this can translate into the realization that the logic is equally flawed the other way around.

Posted by Michael Hurt on April 18, 2007

--

Archived with permission of author.

Original Source: Scribblings of the Metropolitician
<a href="http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/04/the_politics_of.html">http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/04/the_politics_of.html</a></p>

Creator

Michael Hurt

Date

2007-06-21

Contributor

Brent Jesiek

Rights

Michael Hurt (kuraeji@gmail.com)

Language

Title

Librescu Day

Description

By Salah Obeid
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jun 8, 2007, 00:27

There isn&#39;t room enough on the calendar to honor every American hero, but Aug. 16, the birthday of one such hero, is a day teachers and others who cherish education should make a point of celebrating.

No one knows what drove Liviu Librescu, four months short of his 77th birthday, to martyr himself to the cause of education. But that is what Librescu, a Romanian-born Holocaust survivor and mechanical engineering professor, did when he blocked a gunman from entering his Virginia Tech University classroom on April 16 -- earning him five bullets, one of them to the head -- so that most of his students could escape through the windows.

Because he was slain in a public learning institution, public schools are where he should be celebrated. And because Librescu (the root of whose name, "libre," is Latin for "free") came to America searching for freedom, those who teach subjects like U.S. history and government should make honoring him a lesson on where his adopted country truly stands on freedom.

By the time they enter college, many students in this country can&#39;t think critically about history and politics, having rarely been encouraged in school to think creatively outside of art and music class. Yet wolfing down hot dogs and soaking up sun on a field trip to celebrate Librescu Day could amount to more than just indigestion and sunburn, if the day were also an occasion for students to reflect on how their country, a magnet for immigrants seeking freedom, too often deprives people in other countries of the very freedoms Americans enjoy.

Throughout its history, the United States has -- in places like Latin America, Haiti, the Philippines and elsewhere -- picked fights at the drop of a dime whenever dollars were to be made, a fact that is largely ignored in classrooms around the country. The result is that, as the country gets bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, many students don&#39;t know any better than to think thousands of their fellow citizens, most only slightly older than them, are killing and being killed in those countries in the name of spreading freedom.

But freedom can mean many things. Librescu, born on Aug. 16, 1930, on the outskirts of Bucharest, was barely nine when World War II broke out and could only watch as his government, also in the name of freedom, helped the Nazis annihilate hundreds of thousands of Romania&#39;s Jewish citizens. Luckily he survived, became an accomplished scientist and, in 1986, after living several years in Israel, left for Virginia on a sabbatical and never looked back. Little did he know that years later a frustrated, mentally-ill college student would alone succeed where the focused efforts of the entire Nazi Party had failed.

Still, Librescu&#39;s death will have been partly in vain if teachers ignore the dedication symbolized by a colleague&#39;s choosing to die so that his students might live to see another classroom. Ignorance that isn&#39;t necessarily willful but rather the result of intimidation.

How else to explain that so many U.S. history and government teachers go out of their way to avoid discussing the context in which President Bush, in his second inaugural address, for example, used words like "freedom" and "liberty" some dozen odd times? Or in which Vice President Dick Cheney, during remarks to Westminster College in Missouri a few years ago, paraphrased Winston Churchill&#39;s assessment of the struggle against Soviet communism, in order to paint a picture of the chaos in U.S.-occupied Iraq as a contest between "those who served an aggressive, power-hungry ideology and those who believed in human liberty, freedom of conscience and the dignity of every life"?

Words like "liberty" and expressions like "freedom of conscience" are easily said; the challenge is living up to the ideals they represent. But often politicians aren&#39;t so challenged to begin with, and worse, sometimes rely on such words, as George Orwell wrote, "in a consciously dishonest way."

Dignity of life, after all, means little coming from someone like Cheney, whose central pursuit over the past few years has been to enrich his friends at Enron and Halliburton over the dead bodies of an estimated million or so Iraqi civilians -- people who might have lived in fear under Saddam Hussein, but who at least could&#39;ve expected to live with far more certainty than can Iraqis today.

Propaganda and censorship is something that, growing up in communist Romania, Librescu knew all too well. The same can be said of another Jewish hero to whom he is often compared.

On Aug. 5, 1942, German soldiers stormed an orphanage for Jewish children in Warsaw, instructing the man who ran it, Janusz Korczak, that he was free to go, but that his 200 or so orphans and several staff members were slated for extermination. Unlike Librescu, Korczak couldn&#39;t save his charges from death. Instead, he followed them to the gas chamber, his final gesture to children who&#39;d had so little and died so young.

A renowned children&#39;s author and pediatrician, Korczak was also a teacher, and instructed hundreds at his Dom Sierot (Polish for "house for orphans") with little regard for convention. Those who survived the war recount being allowed to form a "kind of a republic for children, with its own small parliament, court and newspaper," according to an entry on <a href="http://wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia.org</a>. By contrast, a half-century later, American public schools appear intent on turning students into automatons.

And even that they&#39;re getting wrong.

Students in the United States, in subjects like math and science, which require learning mostly by mind-numbing rote, lag behind their counterparts in miserably poor countries like Bangladesh, Burundi, El Salvador and Nepal. Generally, though, American students also read less for pleasure, visit fewer museums and attend schools with mediocre teachers, all easily gleaned from comparing how flippant and addicted to pop culture many young Americans are next to kids in less fortunate parts of the world.

Maybe that is because, as one credit card company likes to say, there are some things money can&#39;t buy. China, where teachers get paid a pittance by a government that looks with scorn at individual rights and free speech, generally has a more well-read, independent-minded, smarter population than ours. Which is what outright censorship does: breed rebellion.

Censorship, though, shouldn&#39;t be allowed any wiggle room in a country billing itself as the "land of the free." Yet the United States has become fertile ground for it, an indication of which is that mainstream media, not satisfied with just obscuring the "who," "what" and "where" in its news coverage, goes to great lengths to avoid the "why" altogether. It may be just as well, then, that many kids come home from school in the afternoon only to get super glued to MTV, video games or websites like <a href="http://myspace.com/">Myspace.com</a>, since much of what&#39;s in the news would sooner confuse than educate them.

Were that not sad enough, the education that does manage to seep into the minds of these would-be torchbearers of democracy is watered down to the point of irrelevancy. Not because teachers are stupid, evil or lazy but because most are simply too afraid to rock the boat.

Many teachers understand they swim in murky water. Water that has swallowed teachers like Deb Mayer at Clear Creek Elementary in Monroe County, Indiana, near Bloomington (home, ironically, to liberal arts-dominated Indiana University). Mayer was fired in 2003 after she dared discuss the subject of peace movements during a general class discussion about the build-up to the war in Iraq.

Similarly, a school in Wilton, Conn., recently banned a play about the conflict in that country.

"In Wilton, most kids only care about Britney Spears shaving her head or Tyra Banks gaining weight," 16-year-old Devon Fontaine, a cast member, told The New York Times. "What we wanted was to show kids what was going on overseas."

The school administration&#39;s reply: "You can&#39;t always get what you want."

Censorship is well documented in schools throughout the country. Schools like Columbine High School in Colorado, where Alfred Wilder was fired in 1996 for showing Bernardo Bertolucci&#39;s film, "1900," which explores fascism, to a senior class studying logic and debate. That instance of censorship may even have cost 13 students and a teacher their lives.

A video depicting students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold rehearsing for the massacre they&#39;d go on to carry out at the school three years later wasn&#39;t allowed to be shown on school grounds because of the controversy surrounding the Bertolucci film.

"If the video had indeed been shown," Al Hidell wrote in "The New Conspiracy Reader," "perhaps somebody would have realized the serious threat it represented, which may have prevented the tragedy from occurring."

Rarely, of course, is censorship so dramatic in its outcome that it becomes a matter of life and death. But there is such a thing as a slow death. Appalled by the stifling of his film, Bertolucci wrote that it was no less than a prelude to totalitarianism when classrooms become a place "in which the voice of established authority denounced criticism or debate, and used the high school classroom to silence other voices."

Voices that hold that "children are the future. Teach them well and let them lead the way."

Before letting cocaine lead the way for her instead, Whitney Huston knew what she was singing about. The minute students are fit to broach subjects like history, government and political affairs is the minute they should be challenged to imagine their future roles as informed, voting citizens. Citizens like Librescu, who wore many hats but probably would have been happy to be remembered as one more in a long line of educators who eschewed empty slogans, who knew that leaving no child behind meant arming students with curiosity, compassion and courage.

Courage, though, shouldn&#39;t mean that 3,500 young Americans, and counting, have to take their final breath in a country that never meant the United States any harm. Courage should mean educating the nation&#39;s youth so that they can spot a charlatan when they see one, even if he worms his way up to the presidency itself. Those who will inherit this nation need that kind of courage from those who&#39;ve been here a while, so that they too can develop the courage to die if need be.

But to die in the spirit of someone like Librescu, who took one bullet after another yet refused to let go, so that others might live and learn.

Rights

Language

Title

What Cho learned

Description

<p>April 20, 2007<br />
Friday</p>
<p>Natalie Solent (Essex)</p>
<p>Nikki Giovanni found one of her Creative Writing students a trial.</p>
<blockquote><i>"And every class I&#39;m saying, &#39;Mr. Cho, take off your (sun)-glasses please, take your hat off please. Mr. Cho, that&#39;s not a poem. Can you work on it please,&#39;" Giovanni recalled. "And then I finally realized that something is not wrong with me, something is wrong with him, and I said to him, &#39;I&#39;m not a good teacher for you.&#39;"</i></blockquote>
<blockquote><i>One day, she arrived and found her class of about 70 students had dwindled to fewer than 10. When she asked a student after class about it, he confessed that "everybody&#39;s scared of (Cho)." Giovanni later had him removed from her class after she threatened to resign.</i></blockquote>
<p>Why did it have to come to that? Imagine if every class <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Seung-hui">Cho Seung-hui</a> had attended had taken place at the invitation of the teacher- an invitation that could be rescinded at any time.</p>
<p>In reality his memories of school were of <a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/19/national/a090738D77.DTL">humiliation</a>, but imagine if, from the age of twelve onwards, or from even earlier if your imagination can stretch that far, school had been an option he could choose if he wanted it.</p>
<p>What if Cho&#39;s concepts of "school" and "college" had been formed by classes like the Karate class <a href=http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/education/2003/01/karate.php">described</a> by Brian Micklethwait?</p>
<blockquote><i>What struck me, so to speak, about these "martial arts" classes was that although the children present may have supposed that all there were learning was how to be more violent, what they were really learning was no less than civilisation itself.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote><i>The children were all told to get changed into their Karate kit in an orderly fashion, and to put their regular clothes in sensible little heaps. They all lined up the way he said. They all turned up on time. They left the place impeccably clean when they&#39;d finished, all helping to make sure that all was ship-shape and properly closed-up when they left.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote><i>Were these children being "coerced"? Certainly not. They didn&#39;t have to be there, any more than The Man had to teach them Karate if he didn&#39;t want to. If they wanted out, then out they could go, with no blots on their copybooks or markings-down on their CVs.</i></blockquote>
<p>Having reached the age of twenty-three, Cho was no longer forced to be taught - but his teachers were still forced to teach him and his fellow students to associate with him. True, there were a few last ways out from his menacing presence; the students could jeopardise their education by skipping class and the teacher could jeopardise her career by threatening to resign. Unfortunately by the time these sanctions were employed Cho had already got away with too much.</p>
<p>I sometimes think that practically every problem, inefficiency and cruelty of our education system has at its root compulsion. People who are forced into each other&#39;s society tend not to behave well to each other. Wherever the doors are locked, be the locks visible or invisible, those inside seem to revert to the hierarchy of the baboon troop. There is still room for free will: most do no worse than learn a few habits of obsequiousness or sullenness that can be shaken off. Cho was not forced to become a mass-murderer. (In fact I see his own claim to the contrary in his video as a sort of twisted acknowledgement of this fact; the thought that "I don&#39;t have to do this" had to be actively denied.) No, he was not forced to pull the trigger - but force did play too large a part in his life. Imagine if the doors had been open for the bullied Cho Seung-hui to walk away, or if the adult Cho Seung-hui had been shown the door at the first sign of discourtesy. Imagine this was the case not just for Cho Seung-hui on certain pivotal occasions but for everyone on all occasions. Then, I think, he would have learned differently.</p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Original Source: <a href="http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/04/what_cho_learne_1.html">http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2007/04/what_cho_learne_1.html</a></p>
<p>Licensed under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0</a>.</p>